IMPORTANT POINT
The court held that delays in executing detention orders are not fatal if justified by circumstances, emphasizing compliance with statutory requirements under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act.

JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

This writ petition is instituted seeking, among others, a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the friend of the petitioner, Nandakumar, who is detained in terms of an order issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (the Act), and to set him at liberty.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Government Pleader.

3. Ext.P1 order of detention was issued on 20.06.2024 and the same was executed on 30.09.2024. The detenu is involved in four cases of which the last one was Crime No.401 of 2024 of Palakkad Town North Police Station registered on 06.04.2024 under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 17 of the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 and Section 4 of the Kerala Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2012. The detenu was arrested in connection with the last case on 16.04.2024 and he was enlarged on bail on 27.05.2024.

4. The first and foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is inordinate delay in executing the order of detention and that the detention is therefore illegal. It was also contended by the learned counsel that there is a long delay of 75 days from the date of the last prejudicial activity and the order of detention and the said delay snapped the live link between the order of detention and the grounds of detention and that the order of detention is, therefore, vitiated. It was further contended by the learned counsel that there is non-compliance of the mandatory requirement contained under Section 3(3) of the Act inasmuch as the order of detention has not been reported forthwith to the Government and the Director General of Police, together with a copy of the order and supporting records and that therefore, the detention is illegal. It was further contended by the learned counsel that Ext.P4 representation preferred by the petitioner before the Government against the order of detention has not been considered by the Government at the earliest opportunity on the ground that the matter is seized of by the Advisory Board and that the representation has been considered only after the receipt of the report of the Advisory Board. According to the learned counsel, the course adopted by the Government in this regard is faulty and that the Government ought to have considered and disposed of Ext.P4 representation notwithstanding the fact that the matter is seized of by the Advisory Board. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Pankaj Kumar Chakrabarty v. State of W.B. , (1969) 3 SCC 400, the decision of the two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Pramod Singla v. Union of India , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 374 and the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Kumari A.V. v. State of Kerala , 2024 KHC 646, in support of his argument. It was the submission of the learned counsel that inasmuch as the said course has not been adopted by the Government, the detention is illegal.

5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that when the order of detention was issued, it was noticed that the detenu was arrested in connection with a case registered in Madukkarai Police Station in the State of Tamil Nadu under Section 398 IPC and that he was in judicial custody in connection with that case. According to the learned Government Pleader, it was on account of that reason that the order of detention could not be executed with immediate effect. It was pointed out that the detenu was enlarged on bail in that case only on 07.09.2024 and that immediately thereafter, the order of detention was executed on 30.09.2024.As regards the contention that there is delay from the date of the last prejudicial activity to the order of detention, it was pointed out by the learned Government Pleader that the proposal to det